YOUR VIEW: Unconstitutional in Arizona

Arizona has rewritten its laws to address what it rightfully claims is a lack of response by the federal government with respect to the criminal and social issues surrounding illegal immigration.

RICH MEDICKE

Arizona has rewritten its laws to address what it rightfully claims is a lack of response by the federal government with respect to the criminal and social issues surrounding illegal immigration.

A provision of that law, however, authorizes Arizona law enforcement officers to stop any person driving a motor vehicle if the officer has "reasonable suspicion" that the person may be in the country illegally; that provision is, despite the arguments of its supporters, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (as well as the Arizona state constitution).

To address criticisms of the new law, Gov. Jan Brewer said in her signing statement that she had pressed for language in the bill that bars law enforcement officers from "solely considering race, color, or national origin" and requires them to implement the provision "in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens."

To this end, she stated that she had issued an executive order mandating the development of training for law enforcement as to "what does — and does not — constitute 'reasonable suspicion' that a person is not legally present in the United States."

Brewer stated that the bill "represents my steadfast support for enforcing the law — both against illegal immigration and against racial profiling "¦ I will not tolerate racial discrimination or racial profiling in Arizona."

The arguments made by Brewer and other proponents in support of the new law do not bear close scrutiny.

Given that existing law in Arizona (and most other states in the Union) authorizes law enforcement to verify a person's immigration status if stopped for other reasons, there's no legitimate justification for this new provision other than to serve as a legal pretext for a fishing trip. The new provision would only be operative when a law enforcement officer made a stop without probable cause, and without a reasonable suspicion that the person had been involved in a crime.

It is also hard to see how the new law does not promote racial profiling. It is unclear that any meaningful "standards" could be developed by the Arizona law enforcement community to confine stops made under the provision to the statutory objective of identifying suspected "illegals," without unduly trespassing on the rights of legal residents and citizens.

Also, given that the focus on "illegals" in Arizona is almost exclusively directed against persons of Latino origin, the new provision essentially amounts to an authorization to stop people for "driving while Latino."

Further, when one takes into account the wide range of skin colors within Latino ethnic groups, and the historical Anglo predilection for defining race in terms of "white" and "non-white," the pattern of stops would likely expand to include other peoples of color.

In light of these considerations, only one conclusion is possible: The provision effectively embodies an implicit racial classification which fails to serve any legitimate statutory purpose, and is, therefore, unconstitutional.